Central Coast Region 2008 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report · requirements of CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b) • The 2008 Integrated Report is California’s first • The following

1

Central Coast Region 2008 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report

2

Outline• Purpose of today's workshop

• CWA requirements to assess data & report on water quality (2 min)

• Highlights from this effort (3 min)

• Background - Developing the 2008 Integrated Report (30 min)– Draft Recommendations for changes to the Section 303(d) – List of

Impaired Waterbodies (20 min)– Draft Recommendations for changes to the Section 305(b) – Water

Quality Condition Report (10 min)

• Summary Stats for 303(d) List (15 min)– Listed pollutants– Geographic distribution of listings– TMDL prioritization – High Priority Watershed Listings

3

Public Workshop

• Purpose of the Workshop– Explain general process followed to develop

the 2008 Integrated Report– Provide you with a summary of the findings– Provide an opportunity to receive public

comment• Public Comment Period is April 10 – May 26, 2009

4

The Clean Water Act (CWA)

• Section 303(d) – List of Impaired Waterbodies– Requires each State to develop, update, and submit to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a list of those waterbodies that are “impaired or threatened”

– Waterbodies on the Section 303(d) List must be addressed through the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or by other means

• Section 305(b) – Water Quality Condition Report– Requires each state to report biennially to the USEPA on the

water quality condition of its waters

5

2008 Integrated Report

• In 2005 USEPA mandated that a single state-wide Integrated Report be prepared to meet the reporting requirements of CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b)

• The 2008 Integrated Report is California’s first

• The following draft recommendations are for changes to1) The Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired

Waterbodies in the Central Coast Region

2) The Clean Water Act Section 305(b) report on the condition ofwater quality within the Central Coast Region

6

2008 Integrated Report Timeline

45 day Public Comment PeriodEnds May 26, 2009

Public Workshop to receive public comment

April 22, 2009

EPA ApprovalTBA

State Board Public HearingTBA

Public HearingJuly 10, 2009

Data assessments – complete draft recommendations

Feb 08 - March 09

Identify Relevant Water Quality Objectives and Evaluation Guidelines

Dec 07 – Feb 08

Gather available data(Public Solicitation)

Dec 07 – Feb 08

TaskTime Period

7

Highlights

• Most comprehensive assessment in the State – Assessment tool development

• Systematic scanning of data and criteria• Electronic upload to CA assessment database

• Assessments using Evaluation Guidelines to protect aquatic life (i.e. Water Temperature, Turbidity, Chlorophyll a & Nitrate)

8

Highlights2008 Integrated Report Assessment

CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b)

• 18 sources of data assessed

• 345 Waterbodies assessed – Including 232 streams and rivers, 77 beaches & 6 harbors

9

HighlightsCWA Section 303(d) List of

Impaired Waters Findings

• 2008 Proposed List (waterbody/pollutant combinations)

• Listed = 689• De-listed = 51 (5 due to meeting water quality standards)

• No Evidence of Impairment = 2967

• vs the 2006 List – Listed = 122– No waters identified as “unimpaired”

10

Highlights

CWA Section 305(b) Condition Report Findings

• Streams & rivers - 232 assessed (28%)– 82 with “No evidence of Impairment”– 150 are “Impaired”

• 50 of these added in 2008

• Beaches 77 assessed– 55 with “No evidence of Impairment”– 22 are “Impaired”

11

Highlights

• Data validated known water quality issues – Lower Santa Maria, Salinas and Pajaro Watersheds– Nitrate and fecal coliform problems are widespread

• Data validated high quality waters along Big Sur Coast– No Listings in the Santa Lucia (Big Sur Coastal)

Hydrologic Unit

12


303(d) AssessmentIs the waterbody impaired by a pollutant?

305(b) AssessmentIs the Beneficial Use supported?

13

303(d) - Is the waterbody impaired?

– Gather available data– Identify relevant criteria (Basin Plan and other)– Evaluate Data

• All data evaluated using the “Decision Rules” in the Listing Policy • Develop Lines Of Evidence (LOEs) for Waterbody/Pollutant/BUs

– Compare all data to all criteria– Summarize data assessment

• Develop Decisions – Combine LOEs– Determine Listing Status

14

Gather Available Data and Info• Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) • Central Coast Water Quality Protection Irrigated Agriculture Monitoring Program

(CCWQP) • Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) • Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)• Department of Public Health (DPH)• AB 411 beach monitoring data (All Coastal Counties)• County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health watershed data • City of Watsonville• City of Santa Maria• California State University, Monterey Bay (Central Coast Watershed Studies)• University of California, Santa Cruz (Dr. Marc Los Huertos)• University of California, Berkley (Dr. Don Weston)• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Citizens Monitoring Network• Coastal Watershed Council Citizen Monitoring Program• Santa Barbara Channel Keepers• Morro Bay Volunteer Monitoring Program• California Forestry Association• Center for Biological Diversity

15

Identify Relevant Criteria• All Central Coast Basin Plan Objectives• Evaluation Guidelines

– EPA Water Contact Recreation – OEHHA Fish Consumption Guidelines– NAS Wildlife Bioaccumulation Criteria– Sediment Quality Guidelines– Evaluation Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Life

• Chlorpyrifos• Diazinon• Water Temperature• Turbidity• Chlorophyll a• Nitrate• Microcystin

16

Criteria for use of Evaluation Guidelines

The CA Listing Policy states the following: “When evaluating narrative water quality objectives or beneficial use protection, RWQCBs and SWRCB shall identify evaluation guidelines that represent standard attainment or beneficial use protection:”

“…evaluation guidelines may be used if it can be demonstrated thatthe evaluation guideline is:

• Applicable to the beneficial use• Protective of the beneficial use• Linked to the pollutant under consideration• Scientifically-based and peer reviewed• Well described• Identifies a range above which impacts occur and below which no or

few impacts are predicted”

17

Evaluation Guidelines for Aquatic Life Uses

• Water Column Evaluation Guidelines – Water Temperature (21 degrees C)– Turbidity (25 NTUs)

• Meets Listing Policy Requirements– Applicable to the beneficial use– Protective of the beneficial use– Linked to the pollutant under consideration– Scientifically-based and peer reviewed– Well described– Identifies a range above which impacts

occur and below which no or few impacts are predicted

18

Evaluation Guidelines for Aquatic Life Uses

– Water Column Evaluation Guidelines• Nitrate (1.0 mg/L) developed using the California NNE

and CCAMP data for 191 sites Region wide– Risk based approach based on pollutants that cause Biostimulation (i.e.

nutrients) and measures of resulting impacts (i.e. algae& low DO)

– Meets Listing Policy Requirements

– State Board Staff support use of NNE for 303(d) assessment and recommend using 0.23 mg/L (Total N as N).

– Region 3 Technical Report describing nitrate guideline

– Applied to High Priority Watersheds

– Intent is to apply Region Wide in future assessments

19

Evaluate Data - Creating LOEswaterbody / beneficial use / pollutant combination

Content of a Line of Evidence (LOEs)– Waterbody– Beneficial Use– Pollutant– Water Quality Objective and/or Evaluation Guideline– Data Set

• Spatial (sample Locations)• Temporal (sample date and time)• Quality Assurance• Sample Count• Exceedance Count

20

Evaluate Data - Creating LOEswaterbody / beneficial use / pollutant combination

Content of a Line of Evidence (LOEs)– Waterbody (Salinas River)

– Beneficial Use (REC1)

– Pollutant (Fecal Coliform)

– Water Quality Objective (400 MPN/100 mL)

– Data Set (CCAMP)• Spatial (6 sites, and list them out)• Temporal (Monthly Jan 99 - March 00 and Jan 05-Dec06)• Quality Assurance (EPA Approved QAPP)• Sample Count (120 samples)• Exceedance Count (38 exceedances)

21

Combining LOEs into a Decision

Decisions = waterbody / pollutant combination

LOE #1

LOE #2

LOE #3

LOE #4

Waterbody A Pollutant XDecision

(i.e. “List” or “Do Not List”)

22

DecisionsRules for Toxic and Conventional pollutants

Toxins:– Metals – Chlorine– Nutrients– Pesticides– PAHs– PCBs– Toxicity – etc.

Conventionals:– Dissolved oxygen– pH – Salts– Temperature – Turbidity– Pathogen Indicators– etc.

23

303(d) DecisionHow Many Exceedances are Needed to List?

Toxic PollutantsMin 16 samples to assess

Binomial Test• Min 2 “hits” to list

• As sample size increases the number of “hits”needed to list increases

772-82

660-71

548-59

437-47

325-362< 25

Number of hits to list

Sample size

24

303(d) DecisionHow Many Exceedances are Needed to List?

Conventional PollutantsMin 26 samples to assess

Binomial Test• Min 5 “hits” to list

• As sample size increases the number of “hits”needed to list increases

1055-60

949-54

843-48

737-42

631-365< 31

Number of hits to list

Sample size

25


303(d) AssessmentsIs the waterbody impaired by a pollutant?

305(b) AssessmentIs the Beneficial Use Supported?

26

CWA Section 305(b)Water Quality Condition Report for

Central Coast Region’s Waters

For each waterbody, all Beneficial Uses that are assessed are classified into one of three

categories….• Fully Supporting • Insufficient Information • Not Supporting

– Based on Best Professional Judgment – Regional interpretation “Fully Supporting”

Background Info

27

305(b) Assessments:Region 3 defined an approach

The Binomial Test (as defined in the 303(d) Listing Policy) defines a minimum sample count for making decisions. . .

• 16 samples for toxins• 26 samples for conventionals

R3 staff incorporated this into the decision rules to

determine “fully supporting” vs. “insufficient information”

28

R3 Definition of “Fully Supporting”

Use Rating = Fully Supporting if….

• Conventional Pollutants (i.e. DO, temp, bacteria)

– At least 26 samples and not impaired

• Toxic Pollutants (i.e. nutrients, pesticides and toxicity)

– At least 16 samples and not impaired

29

Integrated Report CategoriesWaters that meet standards (Categories 1 or 2)

1. All core uses “fully supporting”2. At least one core use “fully supporting” & no uses are impaired

Waters for which it is unknown if standards are met (Category 3)3. Insufficient data to make use support determinations

& no uses are impaired

Waters that are impaired - Categories 4 or 5 (the 303(d) list)4. All pollutant impairments are addressed (i.e by TMDLs) 5. At least one use not supported & TMDL is needed

Background Info

30

Integrated Report CategoriesWaters that meet standards - Categories 1 or 2

1. All core uses “fully supporting”2. At least one core use “fully supporting” & no uses are impaired

Waters for which it is unknown if standards are attained - Category 33. Insufficient data to make use support determinations

& no uses are impaired

Waters that are impaired - Categories 4 or 5 (the 303(d) list).4. All pollutant impairments are addressed (i.e by TMDLs) 5. At least one use not supported & TMDL is needed

Background Info

31

Findings from the CWA Section 305(b) Condition Report

• No evidence of Impairment (Categories 1, 2 or 3)– 82 Streams and Rivers– 55 Beaches– 3 Harbors– 3 Lakes

• Impaired (Categories 4 or 5)– 150 Streams and Rivers– 22 Beaches– 2 Harbors– 5 Lakes– 8 Estuaries

Background Info – Summary Stats

32

2008 List Summary Stats

• Any De-listings?• How many new Listings?• What Pollutants?• Which Watersheds?

33

2008 Region 3 CWA Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

Summary StatsDecisions = Waterbody / Pollutant Combination

Listed689

Total Decisions in 20083708

De-list51

Do not list 2967

DecisionDecision

Count

Summary Stats

34


De-Listings (N=51)*

Five based on water quality standards being met

Llagas CreekpH

Chumash CreekLow Dissolved Oxygen

Chorro CreekLow Dissolved Oxygen

Santa Maria RiverUnionized ammonia

Tembladero SloughUnionized ammonia

WaterbodyPollutant

Summary Stats

*46 are de-listed because of faulty listing or removal of a general pollutant name and re-evaluation of the specific pollutant

35


Top 10 Pollutant Listings (N=689)

20 (9 new)Un-ionized ammonia

26 (22 new)Chlorpyrifos

30 (All new)Chloride

38 (All new)Sodium

37 (All new)Turbidity

45 (41 new)Toxicity

46 (18 new)Nitrate

51 (44 new)Low DO

54 (All new)E. coli

54 (All new)pH

87 (54 new)Fecal Coliform

Number of ListingsPollutant

36


Potential Sources

34%Ag & Urban

42%Source Unknown

31%Grazing

41%Urban/Storm Water

59%Agriculture

Percent of Listings

Potential Source(s)

37

Watershed Area Listings

Summary Stats

1+ listings

No Listings

Not Assessed

38

Number of Waterbodys Listed Includes Streams, Lakes, Beaches, Harbors

12

117

21

11

891

57

1680

3

35

110

65

# of Listings

1311 – Carrizo Plains

# of WBs ListedHydrologic Unit

2317 - Estrella River

37315 – Santa Barbara Coastal

6314 – Santa Ynez River

3313 – San Antonio Creek

15312 – Santa Maria

25310 – SLO County Coastal

30309 – Salinas River0308 – Big Sur Coast

1307 – Carmel River

6306 – Elkhorn Slough

27305 – Pajaro River

32304 – Santa Cruz Coastal

39

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Prioritization

The five year plan…

40

TMDL Prioritization

• TMDLs in Progress (by 2011)– Santa Cruz pathogens (9 listings)

– Santa Barbara Beaches (15 listings)

– Pajaro Watershed (11 Listings)

• Highest Priority Watersheds (by 2013)– Lower Santa Maria (82 listings)

• Develop watershed TMDL Multiple BU’s impacted by multiple pollutants

– Lower Salinas & Rec Canal Watersheds (117 listings)• Complete TMDLs in progress and initiate TMDLs for

pathogens, toxicity, pesticides, nutrients & pathogens

41

Other Listings

The 5 year plan– Complete TMDLs for 234 of the listings

– Coordinate with other Regional Board Programs (i.e. Ag and Storm Water Programs)

– 2010 Integrated Report for 303(d) and 305(b)

– Prioritize future TMDLs– Consider watershed or parameter-based TMDLs

42

South Coast Beaches

43

Beaches AssessmentsSouth Coast Hydrologic Unit

Listings– Fecal Coliform (2)– Enterococcus (6)– Total Coliform (7)*

*Based on Shellfish Harvesting Beneficial Use Objective

11 Beaches 15 Waterbody-pollutant listings

Most Impaired**

East Beach (Mission Creek Mouth) – 3 listings

Arroyo Burro Beach – 2 listings

Point Rincon (Rincon Creek Mouth) – 2

**Shellfish Harvesting Beneficial Use was only applied to beaches that would have been delisted otherwise.

44

High Priority Lower Santa Maria Watershed

Santa Maria RiverOrcutt Creek

45

Watershed AssessmentsLower Santa Maria & Oso Flaco Watersheds

De List – Santa Maria River – Un-ionized NH3

46

Watershed AssessmentsLower Santa Maria & Oso Flaco Watersheds

Listings (Toxins)– Nitrate (12)– Unionized ammonia (7)– Water Toxicity (10)– Sediment Toxicity (5)– Chlorpyrifos (5)– Diazinon (2)– DDT (2)– Dieldrin (3)

Listings (Conventionals)– Fecal Coliform (11)– Boron (2)– Chloride (3)– Dissolved Oxygen (2)– pH (6)– Temperature (2)– Turbidity (5)

15 Waterbodies 82 Waterbody-pollutant listings

Most Impaired

Orcutt Creek (15 Listings)

Santa Maria River (13 Listings)

Main Street Canal (8 Listings)

47

Watershed Assessments2008 Recommendations

Santa Maria River13 pollutant listings (8 new)

Orcutt Creek

48

Watershed AssessmentsSanta Maria River

13 pollutant listings (8 new)

Existing Listings• DDT• Dieldrin• Endrin• Nitrate• Fecal Coliform

New Listings• Chlorpyrifos• Sediment Toxicity• Water Toxicity• Toxaphene• Turbidity • Chloride• Sodium • E. coli

49

Watershed Assessments2008 Recommendations

Santa Maria River

Orcutt Creek15 pollutant listings (8 new)

50

Watershed AssessmentsOrcutt Creek

15 pollutant listings (8 new)

Existing Listings• Ammonia• Chlorpyrifos• DDT• Dieldrin• Nitrate• Fecal Coliform• Boron

New Listings• Diazinon• Sediment Toxicity• Water Toxicity• Water temperature• Turbidity • Chloride• Sodium • Conductivity

51

High PrioritySalinas Reclamation Canal & Tembladero Slough

Salinas Rec Canal

Gabilan Creek

Tembladero Slough

52

Watershed AssessmentsSalinas Reclamation Canal Watershed

De-List - Tembladero Slough for un-ionized NH3

53

Watershed AssessmentsSalinas Reclamation Canal Watershed

10 Waterbodies75 listings

Listings (Toxins)– Nitrate (7)– Unionized ammonia (6)– Water Toxicity (7)– Sediment Toxicity (7)– Chlorpyrifos (3)– Diazinon (4)

Listings (Conventionals)– Fecal Coliform (5)– Chlorophyll a (1)– Dissolved Oxygen (5)– pH (5)– Temperature (1)– Turbidity (7)

3 Most Impaired Salinas Rec Canal (14 Pollutant Listings)

Tembladero Slough (13 Pollutant Listings)

Espinosa Slough (8 Pollutant Listings)

54

Watershed AssessmentsSalinas Rec Canal14 pollutant listings (9 new)

Existing Listings• Ammonia (Unionized)• Fecal Coliform• Low Dissolved Oxygen• Pesticides• Priority Organics

New Listings• Chlorpyrifos• Copper• Diazinon• E. coli• Nitrate • pH• Sediment Toxicity• Turbidity• Water Toxicity

55

Watershed AssessmentsTembladero Slough13 pollutant listings (9 new)

Existing Listings• Fecal Coliform• Nutrients• Pesticides

New Listings• Chlorophyll a • Chlorpyrifos• Diazinon• E. coli• Nitrate • pH• Sediment Toxicity• Total Coliform• Turbidity• Water Toxicity

56

High PriorityLower Salinas River

57

Watershed AssessmentsLower Salinas River Watershed

(6 Waterbodies )42 listings

Listings (Toxins)– Nitrate (6)– Unionized ammonia (2)– Water Toxicity (3)– Sediment Toxicity (1)– Chlorpyrifos (4)– Diazinon (4)

Listings (Conventionals)– Fecal Coliform (4)– Dissolved Oxygen (2)– pH (3)– Temperature (2)– Turbidity (6)

3 Most Impaired Lower Salinas River (15 Pollutant Listings)

Quail Creek (11 Pollutant Listings)

Chualar Creek (10 Pollutant Listings)

58

Watershed AssessmentsLower Salinas River 15 pollutant listings (8 new)

Existing Listings• Fecal Coliform• Nitrate• Nutrients• Pesticides• Toxaphene• TDS *• Chloride *

*Revised pollutant name (from Salinity/TDS/Chlorides)

New Listings• Chlorpyrifos• Diazinon• Electrical Conductivity• Enterococcus• E. coli• pH• Sodium• Turbidity• Water Toxicity

59

Comments

Documents

Central Coast Region 2008 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report · requirements of CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b) • The 2008 Integrated Report is California’s first • The following